Suspicious CA3 pass mark/technical difficulties

It says 18th November on the June minutes... but thought I'd read somewhere else it's the 28th. In any case, best get your valuable comments in!

 

Yeah, just forward on the link to this forum!

 

Despite being told by the IFoA that I would hear something by the end of last week, I have not. What a surprise! I sent a chaser on Friday morning to check they were still on course to provide a response to me. Below is the response I got from my chaser.

I am afraid I do not have an update.
Your query though is with our Registrar at the moment and you should receive a response soon.

 

In August they asked for a graph, which would eat into time. I believe this makes the exam harder, yet the pass mark went up?

In November they didn't even have an actuarial topic in Q1 & also wanted a graph. This should mean a lower pass mark for November. I bet it won't be: it will be around 65 again with around 60% failing it.

 

As an aside, isn't it odd they use volunteers for anything to do with the exams and marking of them when they make hundreds of thousands of £ from these exams... where does the money go?

 

Those that mark the exams are paid. They are volunteers in so far as they are not directly employed by the profession but they are paid for the marking. These type of volunteers roles have a special name - think they are PDR roles can't remember what it stands for. They sign up for marking each session.

 

This morning I received the breakdown of my marks after requesting a Subject Access Request.

This is the breakdown of my marks:
Marker 1: Written - 38%, Presentation - 80% (Average 59% => Fail)
Marker 2: Written - 54%, Presentation - 79% (Average 66.5% => Pass)

My scripts were not marked a 3rd time.

Given I got a mark of 62 when the pass mark was 65 (an FA in the old regime of marking), I think this would be a borderline case. Also I think it is reasonable to argue that there is a disagreement in the mark for the written part. Both of these reasons would require the paper to be marked a 3rd time, but it hasn't in my case.

I have emailed Education Services, Putting Things Right and Karen Brocklesby (the Registrar) on this matter. I will keep you posted.

 

Wow! How on earth can the written component have such a wide variation? I would have expected wide mark variations in the presentation part.

 

First of all I don't think much of the 'coincidence' explanation you had received earlier from them.

I suspect that my result in February will turn out similar - a stronger mark & pass in Q2 but overall average failing to meet their pass mark. For Q1 I would ask how much the markers awarded you for the graph you made and how many marks were going for that & ask how the pass mark increased when there was less time to write 600 words due to the graph requirement.

Just from a layman's perspective how can you be getting 80% in Q2 then get way less in Q1? I don't think it's your communication skills that fluctuate that much between morning and afternoon. It's about time they told us what THEY are doing when it comes to marking Q1. It's about time Acted find out and coach us accordingly.

It's clear to me marker 1's marking should be investigated as his/her mark for Q1 has caused a fail here. I mean, if marker 1 hasn't marked other people's Q1 then it could be you've failed and others have passed because other people luckily avoided this sad marker!!!

 

I've known a few people who mark though admittedly not Ca3 and each marker gets a batch of scripts so they always see more than one candidate. Can't see why it would be any different for this, albeit numbers per sitting are lower than some of the other papers.

 

I hope that marker 1 doesn't mark my Q1 for November !!!!!!! I wonder how many people he/she has caused to fail this exam and become £435 worse off... !!

 

This is interesting Gavin. I got my breakdown today as below:

Marker1: Written-54%, Presentation-77%(Average 65.5%=> Pass)
Marker2: Written-55%, Presentation-62%( Average 58.5%=> Fail)

While I do expect variation on Presentation, the majority of the difference is in the closing remarks where I don't see scope for much interpretation! No evaluation by a 3rd marker for me as well.

 

aditya, that really is a huge difference for the Q2 presentation: near fail vs very clear pass. I feel for you guys, I really do.

 

Aditya,

That is a clear disagreement on the presentation part of the exam. I think it would be wise to email the IFoA on this matter and request for it to be 3rd marked. I have done this and still waiting to hear from them.

On page 70 of the student handbook it says:
'Once the initial pass mark has been decided then scripts which are borderline will be marked a third or possibly fourth time to ensure that the examiners are happy with the proposed pass mark. Where the first two markers disagree a script will also be third marked by an examiner'

I think we both have a case for the paper to be 3rd marked. A colleague of mine was 3rd marked for ST1 and the 3rd mark was conveniently the average of the other two. The marks were only given at a total level per question rather than a breakdown of each part like the first two markers were.

 

Sure. I will be writing to them. The surprising part is that there are no comments at all from the second marker on the presentation where I was graded low. Will keep you posted.

 

It seems a bit wrong that people have to do an SAR and request a third marking when they're in the situation you two are in, of having one marker award a pass and the other a fail. I wonder how this is not built into their process properly as it appears one marker on one question can torpedo the sitting for a student - very unfair.

 

For the process to have integrity I'd say the third marker must not be made aware at all of the marks awarded by previous markers.

 

I am struggling to find any integrity in their process. I don't understand why we are unable to get a breakdown of the marks from the 3rd marker. It makes me think that it just wasn't marked properly the 3rd time round. In my SAR there was a column for 'Moderated Mark', which contained a summary of why I failed (including a typo!). I think the IFoA will come back saying this was the 3rd marker.

 

That would be my instant reaction too! Many, many years ago this profession was deemed not transparent enough and I feel there's an awful long way to go on that.

 

Unlike other exams, I find the 2 marker system odd here. If markers disagree on pass/fail by such a margin then in my view the problem lies with the marking system & individual markers. Seems we need to convince two separate markers with our communication. Well if one is satisfied and the other one isn't then shouldn't the onus be on the one who isn't to provide an explanation why you must be failed, your career stalled for another 6 months, £435 poorer and a day and a half less holiday to resit this thing again... with no serious adjustment to your performance next time except hope you don't come across that marker again!

 

Has anyone else considered the fact that recording a presentation on windows movie maker means you can re-record it a few times until you're happy with it / restart the presentation if you mess up part way through?